(CATSO) Scale: Does the Perpetual Panic Over Sex Offenders Predict Participant Attitudes Toward This Group?

VOLUME 21, ISSUE 3, PAGES 69– 86 (2020) Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society

E-ISSN 2332-886X Available online at https://scholasticahq.com/criminology-criminal-justice-law-society/

Moral Panics and the Community Attitudes Toward Sex Offenders (CATSO) Scale: Does the Perpetual Panic Over Sex Offenders Predict Participant Attitudes Toward this Group?

Jennifer L. Klein,a Danielle J. S. Bailey,b Danielle Tolson Cooperc a University of Texas at Tyler b University of Texas at Tyler c University of New Haven

A B S T R A C T A N D A R T I C L E I N F O R M A T I O N

The post-conviction experiences of registered sex offenders tend to be a difficult experience associated with a variety of unintended consequences including social isolation and harassment. Those consequences result, in part, from community members’ perceptions of this offender group and fear associated with their crimes. Framed within the construct of a perpetual style moral panic, the current study seeks to examine whether prior attitudes and beliefs regarding SORN legislation are significant predictors of the Community Attitudes Toward Sex Offenders (CATSO) Scale. Furthermore, the study seeks to examine whether the elements of Cohen’s moral panic can stand alone in the prediction of the CATSO scale. Results of the study, future research needs, and policy implications are discussed.

Article History: Keywords:

Received August 24th, 2020 sex offenders, community member perceptions, moral panic, CATSO Scale Received in revised form November 4th, 2020 Accepted Novemeber 4th, 2020

Corresponding author: Jennifer L. Klein, Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, University of Texas at Tyler, Department of Social Sciences, Division of Criminal Justice 3900 University Blvd, Tyler, TX, 75799, USA. Email: [email protected] 2 KLEIN ET AL.

Of all convicted offenders, persons convicted safety but may result in a counterintuitive effect by of sexual offenses are among the most feared and inhibiting reentry and rehabilitation success (Huebner perceived dangerous populations. Believed to be & Bynum, 2006; Prescott & Rockoff, 2011). Scholars dangerous individuals with a high recidivism risk argue that moral panic may be responsible for the (Sample & Kadleck, 2008), numerous post-conviction continued proliferation of restrictive sex offender restrictions have been imposed on this population in legislation even in the face of negative empirical the name of public safety. These restrictions include evidence (Klein & Mckissick, 2019). However, to date sex offender registration and notification (SORN) there has been limited research on how moral panics policies and intensive, lifetime community influence community attitudes towards sex offenders supervision, as well as civil commitment. Although and sex offender policies. Of the research that does researchers find that these policies do not provide the exist, a majority focuses on how moral panic drives public safety benefits for which they were designed public support for restrictive sex offender policies (Caldwell & Dickinson, 2009; Huebner & Bynum, (Fox, 2013; Klein & Mckissick, 2019; Maguire & 2006; Prescott & Rockoff, 2011; Renzema & Mayo- Singer, 2011), with limited attention paid to the role Wilson, 2005; Sandler et al., 2008), scholars continue that moral panic plays in sex offender stereotypes and to find strong support for these enhancement measures community attitudes overall. among the public (Levenson et al., 2007; Mears et al., Moral Panics 2008). The misperception regarding sex offenders is Cohen (1972) defined moral panics as a one of the reasons that public support continues to hold ‘fundamentally inappropriate’ reaction to a relatively strong in the face of contradictory empirical evidence. minor social event that leads to an exaggerated level Persons convicted of sexual offenses are believed to of fear and panic. This reaction was rooted in the self- be a homogeneous population, consisting mainly of fulfilling prophecy that whatever event sparked the child predators who rape and murder children (Sample original crisis would occur again, a belief that caused & Kadleck, 2008). Perpetuation of this stereotype in society to seek out and dramatize similar events as popular media and the creation of an us versus them proof of that implicit assumption (Cohen, 1972). mentality of offender posed against victim has created Goode and Ben-Yehuda (1994) identified five a perpetual panic regarding sexual offenders necessary elements of a moral panic: concern, (Burchfield et al., 2014). This citizen panic, in turn, hostility, consensus, disproportionality, and volatility. drives legislative changes that expand the type and Citizens must be concerned about a behavior of a number of offenses considered to be sexual offenses, group of people to such an extent that the group’s as well as enhanced post-conviction restrictions for behavior is portrayed as a threat to the social values of persons convicted of sexual offenses (Lytle, 2015). the broader community. This hostility creates an us One explanation for the perpetuation of sex versus them attitude; one that demonizes the offending offender legislation is moral panic, which is broadly population as a “folk devil” (Cohen, 1972) or villain. defined as inappropriate reactions to minor social Consensus requires this attitude to be widespread problems. Goode and Ben-Yehuda (1994) throughout society, and disproportionality refers to the documented five elements needed to sustain a moral widespread concern being exaggerated or distorted to panic. All five of these elements have been identified such a degree that the attention paid to that behavior in relation to community members’ support for sex or group is beyond the attention paid to similar offender registries (Klein & Mckissick, 2019), behaviors/groups. Finally, volatility indicates a suggesting that moral panic may be the reason that sex sudden eruption of panic and, oftentimes, just as offender legislation continues to broaden in scope and sudden cessation. Goode and Ben-Yehuda (1994) numbers. However, to date, relatively few researchers noted that while the total lifespan of a moral panic may have examined what other effects moral panic has had be relatively short, others can become routinized or on the environment surrounding persons convicted of institutionalized into society so that the condemnation sexual offenses. The current study uses online survey of the behavior continues, but the intense level of fear data to examine the role that moral panic plays on the and panic subsides. However, sex offender researchers perpetuation of the sex offender stereotypes in argue that moral panics regarding sexual victimization community member samples. and persons convicted of sexual offenses have become so ingrained in society that sex offender policy is Literature Review driven by constituent fear (Sample & Kadleck, 2008), moral panic, and misbelief (Maguire & Singer, 2011). Persons convicted of sexual offenses are subject to a variety of restrictive, post-conviction Perpetual Moral Panic of Sexual Offenses and requirements that are designed to increase public Offenders. Both Cohen (1972) and Goode and Ben-

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 21, Issue 3 MORAL PANICS AND THE CATSO SCALE 3

Yehuda (1994) described moral panics as a temporary threats or violence (Wolak et al., 2016). Sexual situation, one that would eventually subside. In fact, recidivism is also relatively rare. Researchers have Goode and Ben-Yehuda (1994) wrote that “the fever found that sexual recidivism rates are generally below pitch that characterizes a society or segments of it 10% (Sample & Bray, 2006; Sandler, Freeman, & during the course of a moral panic is not sustainable Socia, 2008), with mental health treatment resulting in over a long stretch of time” (p. 158). However, sex a significant reduction in sexual recidivism levels offender policy researchers argue that the fear of (Kim et al., 2016). However, these realities are rarely sexual victimization has sustained itself in a way that reflected in community member’s perceptions of other moral panics may not. In particularly, Jenkins sexual offenders. (1998) argued that sexual abuse of children became a The stereotypical sex offender is perceived sustained focus of panic from the 1990s onward, as a by the general public as an untreatable child predator result of several factors, including expansion of who will inevitably recidivate (Lam et al., 2010; internet access, female empowerment, and several Levenson et al., 2007; Richards & McCartan, 2017). high-profile cases in which a child was abducted, Levenson and colleagues (2007) used a sample of raped, and murdered. Burchfield and colleagues Florida residents to examine public perceptions of (2014) found support for what they termed “perpetual sexual offenders and found that community members panic” by analyzing Google Search Data between estimated sexual recidivism levels around 75% and 2004 – 2012. Their data showed a high public interest believed that half of sexual assaults are committed by in “sex offenders” between 2004 and 2012 that did not strangers. Additionally, most of the sample (77%) experience significant yearly fluxuations compared to agreed that sexual offense rates were on the rise, a searches related to “terrorism” and “crime.” This belief that sustains a high fear of sexual victimization suggests that public interest was not driven by local even though the empirical literature does not support events as would be expected under a moral panic this. Another concerning finding from Levenson and framework. Fox (2013) argued that part of the colleagues (2007) was community members’ perpetuation is due to the initial panic over sex resistance to empirical research. Almost half of the offenders as individuals, which evolves into panic sample agreed with the statement “I would support regarding the perceived efficacy of the criminal justice [sex offender] policies even if there is not scientific system to address this sexual violence. This occurs evidence showing that they reduce sexual abuse” when perceptually lenient judicial sentences given to (Levenson et al., 2007, p. 14). This acknowledgement child sexual abusers are made highly publicized as may explain why the moral panic regarding sex proof of an ineffective system. These events, coupled offenders is sustained; community members are so within the sustained fear of sexual victimization, have afraid of sexual victimization and sexual offenders that resulted in a “perpetual panic” (Burchfield et al., 2014) they will actively refuse empirical reality if it that has resulted in “an endless supply of new laws contradicts that fear. intended to control or punish sex offenders in new and harsher ways” (O’Hear, 2008, p. 69). Moral Panic Impact on Sex Offender Policy. Once Part of the persistence of moral panic towards we acknowledge the persistence of a moral panic persons convicted of sexual offenses stems from the regarding sexual victimization and sexual offenders, misunderstanding of community members towards the we must then seek to understand the impact of this reality of sexual offending. Sexual victimization is panic. Prior research has examined the role that usually experienced at the hands of a known perpetual moral panic plays on sex offender perpetrator like a family member, friend, or legislation. Klein and Cooper (2019) examined acquaintance (Mancini, 2013), with only 20% of community member support for more punitive sex sexual victimization perpetrated by a person unknown offender legislation such as the use of registry to the victim (Greenfeld, 1997). According to studies restrictions and enhanced supervision levels. The by the National Incidence Studies of Missing, authors found that support was driven by four of the Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children five elements of moral panic theory; only concern was (NISMART), the type of child abductions that have not significant. All four of the other moral panic fostered the idea of “stranger danger” happen so rarely elements were supported as expected, with community that only 90 cases of stereotypical stranger kidnapping members more likely to support restrictive sex were identified out of the 797,000 cases (less than 1% offender legislation when they were more hostile of cases) analyzed during the NISMART-2 study towards sexual offenders, believed a disproportionate (Sedlack et al., 2002). A later in-depth analysis of response was occurring towards offenders, felt less NISMART-3 data noted that a majority of these consensus in the community, and did not feel a volatile stranger cases involved female victims between the response had already occurred. Given the significant ages of 12 and 17 who were taken initially without impact of moral panic on legislative support, there

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 21, Issue 3 4 KLEIN ET AL. may also be an impact of moral panic elements on sex four factors were only statistically, not substantively, offender perceptions. In particular, are stereotypical significant in understanding due to low loading values. perceptions of sexual offenders influenced by moral Given the mixed findings and our own ability to panic elements? confirm the four-factor scale through confirmatory factor analysis, we chose to use the original design of Measuring Perceptions of Sex Offenders the CATSO instrument but acknowledge that this decision may influence the validity of our scaled One of the difficulties in examining measures. perceptions of sexual offenders is the emotional stigma attached to the term “sex offender” (Church et Current Study al., 2008). To overcome this issue, we decided to use the Community Attitudes Toward Sex Offenders As previously established, the current study (CATSO) developed by Church and colleagues is framed within the construct of a perpetual style (2008). This 18-item instrument assess attitudes on panic (Burchfield et al., 2014). Therefore, assuming four factors: Social Isolation, Capacity to Change, that the panic already exists, the elements of a moral Severity/Dangerousness, and Deviancy. The Social panic will serve as theoretical predictors of the Isolation scale focuses on social relationships and the different elements of the CATSO Scale. At the time of myth that sex offenders are unmarried men who stay this manuscript’s submission, the elements of the at home and cannot maintain friendships. The CATSO Scale have not been tested within the Capacity to Change scale measures respondents’ framework of a moral panic, which makes this study attitudes towards sex offender rehabilitation programs exploratory in nature. The CATSO Scale is comprised and treatment efficacy, and the of four elements – social isolation, capacity to change, Severity/Dangerousness scale measures attitudes severity/dangerousness, and deviancy – as well as the towards offense severity and appropriate punishments. Total Index of Negative Attitudes. Therefore, five OLS Finally, the Deviancy scale measures whether regression analyses will be conducted within this respondents believe in myths about sex offenders’ manuscript. For this study, we are attempting to sexual drives. In addition to the four constructs, the answer the following research questions: (1) Are prior measures are then combined into a full index of the 18 attitudes and beliefs regarding current SORN items, called the Total Index of Negative Attitudes. In legislation significant predictors of the CATSO Scale? addition to its use with community members (Chui et (2) Are the elements of a moral panic significant al., 2014; Church et al., 2011; Klein, 2015; Rogers et predictors of the elements of the CATSO Scale? al., 2011; Wevodau et al., 2016), researchers have used the CATSO scale to examine attitudes towards sex Method offenders in criminal justice (Conley et al., 2011; Day et. al., 2014; Mustaine et al., 2015; Tewksbury & Sample Mustaine, 2012, 2013; Tewksbury et al., 2011, 2012), academic (Shelton et al., 2013), sexual abuse victims Participants for this study were solicited to (Spoo et. al., 2018) and treatment provider (Day et. al., take an online survey through the online participant 2014; Jones, 2013) populations. Campregher and pool, Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Amazon.com serves Jeglic (2016) also used a modified version of the as a third-party administrator and oversees the use of CATSO scale to assess attitudes towards juvenile sex MTurk; MTurk is essentially an online marketplace in offenders. which researchers can solicit individuals to complete surveys for a monetary incentive. Collecting data from Criticisms of CATSO Scale. There have been some the MTurk platform has been shown to be a reliable criticisms regarding the CATSO four factor structure, source of data collection (Goodman et al., 2013; although the research is mixed with regards to Parolacci et al., 2010). For this study, the authors CATSO’s validity. Some researchers found that the recruited a convenience sample from the marketplace variables loaded more strongly on a two factor scale and offered a $1 Amazon credit as incentive for instead of the original four factor structure (Conley et participants to complete a 15 to 30-minute survey. al., 2011; Wevodau et al., 2016), leading to the Once signed up for the study, participants were guided development and use of the CATSO Revised to an external website to complete the survey. Data (CATSO-R) in future research (Corabian & Hogan, were collected using an online instrument designed 2015; Kerr et al., 2018). However, other researchers with Qualtrics Research Suite™ (“Qualtrics,” 2015), find support for the four-factor scale from the original which allowed the researchers to limit duplicate CATSO scale (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2013), responses from participants. The study was approved although Tewksbury & Mustaine (2012) noted that the by the researchers’ Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 21, Issue 3 MORAL PANICS AND THE CATSO SCALE 5

Before beginning the survey, an informed consent As more than half of the study’s participants form was completed. Participants were asked to have at least a Bachelor’s Degree or even more answer a variety of questions addressing their advanced formal education, the decision was made to perceptions of sex offenders and of their state’s sex include education level within the analysis. offender registry. Additionally, individuals who have higher levels of The survey was available during October formal education tend to be less punitive in their 2013, and the final sample consisted of 877 beliefs against offenders (Dowler, 2003), which is a participants who resided in all 50 states across the partial component of the CATSO Scale. As larger United States. As participants were able to self-select concentrations of sex offenders reside in more into the study, the response rate for this sample is populated areas (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2006), the unknown. While we are reluctant to call this a decision was made to include population size in the nationwide sample, at least three participants resided analysis as well. Participants who live among higher in each state across the country. Three participants do numbers of sex offenders may be more perceptive not provide a representative sample at the state level, regarding the potential threat that sex offenders pose but there were higher concentrations of participants compared to those who are living in less populated residing in the north and the southeast. Geographic areas. Finally, there were no reported multicollinearity location was not included in the final models as it was issues between the control variables or between the only correlated with one of the five dependent control variables and the dependent variables; all VIF variables. Participants commonly reported being male levels were at 1.5 or below for these variables. (n = 465, 53.0%), White (n = 521, 59.4%), between 30-34 years of age (median age group), and non- Independent Variables Hispanic (n = 781, 89.1%). The majority of participants, at minimum, reported having a Registry Support, Strictness, and Prior Searches. The Bachelor’s degree (n = 520, 59.3%) and lived in areas registry support, strictness, and prior search variables with populations larger than 50,000 residents (n = 639, sought to measure participants’ current experiences collectively 72.9%). These variables will serve as with the registry system to establish a baseline for control variables; Table 1 shows the univariate whether they support the registry, felt as though the statistics for these variables. registry was strict enough, and whether they have ever used their state’s registry website to search for sex

Table 1. Univariate Statistics for Control Measures (N = 877) offenders living nearby. First, participants were asked “Do you support the use of your state’s publicly Variable Percentages available sex offender registry system in its current Male n = 465 (53.0%) form?” This item was measured on a four-point Likert Gender Female n = 412 (47.0%) scale with response options ranging from definitely not (1) to definitely yes (4). Most frequently, participants Non-White n = 356 (41.6%) Race reported that definitely yes, they support their state’s White n = 521 (59.4%) publicly available sex offender registry system in its current form (46.9%). Age Median Age Group 30-34 years old Next, participants were asked about their perceived level of registry strictness, by asking “How Not Hispanic n = 781 (89.1%) Ethnicity strict do you think the current laws are concerning Hispanic n = 96 (10.9%) your state’s sex offender registry system?” A five-

Highest point Likert scale was used to measure responses, No College Degree n = 357 (40.7%) Level of ranging from way too strict (1) to way too lax (5). Most Bachelor’s Degree or Higher n = 520 (59.3%) Education frequently, participants reported that they felt the strictness of the current laws are just right (40.3%). Northeast n = 144 (16.4%) Finally, participants were asked “Have you ever Geographic Midwest n = 223 (25.4%) searched your state’s sex offender registry website for Region South n = 316 (36.0%) sex offenders living in the areas nearby your home?” West n = 194 (22.1%) Response options were dichotomously measured using no (0) and yes (1) response options. Despite Less than 50,000 people n = 238 (27.1%) 50,000 – 99,999 n = 245 (27.9%) community members’ strong reported support for the Population 100,000 – 249,999 n = 210 (23.9%) registry system, there was a nearly even split as to Size 250,000 – 999,999 n = 100 (11.4%) whether participants actually searched for sex 1,000,000 or more n = 84 (9.6%) offenders in their area. Most frequently, participants

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 21, Issue 3 6 KLEIN ET AL. reported that they had never searched their state’s sex registered male sex offenders than there are registered offender registry website to look for sex offenders female sex offenders.” All items were measured using living in the areas nearby their homes (51.2%). a 5-point Likert scale with response options ranging from Very True (1) to Very False (5). Table 2 shows Registry Knowledge Variable. As suggested by the the univariate statistics for the ten measures that previous variables, community members do not comprise the registry knowledge variable. frequently access the registry materials that are The 5-point Likert scale was used to available to them, yet they still strongly support the encourage variability in the participants’ responses, use of the registry system in their states. Tying into the but due to a lack of variability in the responses, the idea of website access and support, this study seeks to choice was made to dichotomize all ten items. Those determine whether participants are knowledgeable items that were considered factually accurate had the about the efforts they support and whether that Very True and Somewhat True response options knowledge (or lack thereof) would be a significant collapsed and recoded as being correct. For incorrect

Table 2. Registry Knowledge Measures (N = 877)

Very Somewhat Unsure Somewha Very Measure True (1) True (2) (3) t False (4) False (5)

1) In my state, all sex offenders are classified the same, no matter their n = 87 n = 215 n = 370 n = 135 n = 70 crime.* (False) (9.9%) (24.5%) (42.2%) (15.4%) (8.0%)

2) In some states, registered sex offenders are required to live at least n = 196 n = 259 n = 330 n = 60 n = 32 1,000 feet from a school zone, park, or bus stop. (True) (22.3%) (29.5%) (37.6%) (6.8%) (3.6%)

n = 369 n = 222 n = 218 n = 48 n = 20 3) Some sex offenders are required to register for life. (True) (42.1%) (25.3%) (24.9%) (5.5%) (2.3)

4) In some states, juvenile offenders who are at least 14 years old at the n = 120 n = 189 n = 473 n = 73 n = 22 time of the offense, can be placed on the registry if convicted. (True) (13.7%) (21.6%) (53.9%) (8.3%) (2.5%)

5) All sex offenders are required to be on some sort of electronic n = 64 n = 93 n = 261 n = 221 n = 238 monitoring/GPS tracking device at all times.* (False) (7.3%) (10.6%) (29.8%) (25.2%) (27.1%) n = 213 n = 325 n = 230 n = 68 n = 41 6) Sex offenders have very high rates of reoffending.* (False) (24.3%) (37.1%) (26.2%) (7.8%) (4.7%) 7) The Amber Alert system is named after a child named Amber; it has n = 436 n = 135 n = 229 n = 43 n = 34 nothing to do with the color amber. (True) (49.7%) (15.4%) (26.1%) (4.9%) (3.9%)

8) There are more male sex offenders registered than female sex n = 416 n = 236 n = 164 n = 49 n = 12 offenders. (True) (47.4%) (26.9%) (18.7%) (5.6%) (1.4%)

9) Individuals convicted of their very first sexual crime can be classified n = 140 n = 223 n = 451 n = 47 n = 16 as sexual predators or can be placed in a Tier III classification. (True) (16.0%) (25.4%) (51.4%) (5.4%) (1.8%)

10) After serving their prison sentences, some states allow sex n = 87 n = 143 n = 524 n = 91 n = 32 offenders to be incarcerated indefinitely though a process called Civil (9.9%) (16.3%) (59.7%) (10.4%) (3.6%) Commitment. (True)

* Indicates that the measure was reverse coded.

predictor of the elements of the CATSO Scale. Ten answers, the response options of Unsure, Somewhat originally constructed items were used to measure False, and Very False were collapsed into the incorrect registry knowledge. The items were framed in the category. If the measure was a factually inaccurate context of “Thinking about the sex offender registry statement, then the reverse action was taken. Once system in general, please answer the following dichotomized, the ten measures were transformed into questions. In most states… All sex offenders are a count variable with scores ranging from 0 (no classified the same no matter what their crime.” Other registry knowledge measures were answered items included the following: “Some registered sex correctly) to 10 (all registry knowledge measures were offenders are required to live at least 1,000 feet from a answered correctly). The mean score for this variable school zone, park, or bus stop” and “There are more was 4.50, which indicates that most participants do not

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 21, Issue 3 MORAL PANICS AND THE CATSO SCALE 7 have accurate knowledge regarding SORN related Participants were asked seven questions in issues, as they answered more than half of the ten which they needed to identify the most common items incorrectly. offender gender, age group, race, ethnicity, offender/victim relationship, victim type, and type of Stereotypical Sex Offender Variable. In addition to crime or victimization for those individuals currently knowledge regarding SORN related legislation and the registered. Table 3 shows the response options for registry system itself, we also wanted to measure each measure and the univariate statistics regarding whether participants were knowledgeable about the the seven items comprising the stereotypical sex true demographic features of the common registrant offender measure. profile. This variable focuses on whether participants Like with the registry knowledge variable, subscribe to the media’s portrayal of the stereotypical all seven items were dichotomized into “correct” and sex offender and how this portrayal influences “incorrect” response options. The recoded items were participants’ feelings and attitudes toward sex then indexed to create a new measure with participant offenders. Participants were asked to identify seven of scores ranging from 0 (no items were answered the most common characteristics regarding registered correctly) to 7 (all items were answered correctly). sex offenders, based on the findings of Ackerman and As participants answered more than half of the colleagues (2011), who examined nationwide data measures correctly (mean score of 4.55), they were collected from the registry systems. Their findings better able to identify the most common demographic suggest that the most frequent type of registered sex features of registered sex offenders compared to their offender is a White, non-Hispanic male, with a mean legal knowledge, compared to correctly answering age of 44.3 years of age. The most common offense the questions regarding registry knowledge. They committed was a physical, non-consensual sex act were the most successful in correctly identifying the against a minor victim who was between the ages of offender’s gender, race, and ethnicity. 6-14.

Table 3: Frequency Statistics for Stereotypical Sex Offender Measures (N = 877)

Measure Response Options Frequencies Gender Male n = 834 (95.1%) Female n = 43 (4.9%)

Age Group 14-25 years old n = 54 6.2% 26-35 years old n = 406 46.3% 36-45 years old n = 303 34.5% 46-55 years old n = 101 11.5% 56-65 years old n = 11 1.3% 66 years old and older n = 2 0.2%

Race Native American/Alaskan n = 45 5.1% Asian n = 76 8.7% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander n = 21 2.4% Black/African American n = 81 9.2% White n = 627 71.5% Other n = 27 3.1%

Ethnicity Hispanic n = 163 18.6% Not-Hispanic n = 714 81.4%

Offender/Victim Relationship Offender is a stranger n = 285 32.5% Offender is a close friend n = 257 29.3% Offender is a distant relative n = 245 27.9% Offender is an immediate relative n = 90 10.3%

Most Frequent Victim Pre-pubescent female minor n = 361 41.2% Pre-pubescent male minor n = 163 18.6% Post-pubescent female minor n = 203 23.1% Post-pubescent male minor n = 19 2.2% Adult female n = 95 10.8% Adult male n = 36 4.1%

Most Frequent Victimization Physical non-consensual sex act n = 560 63.9% Physical consensual sex act with a minor n = 228 26.0% Non-physical sex act n = 89 10.1%

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 21, Issue 3 8 KLEIN ET AL.

Moral Panic Variables. The final set of independent Five items were also used to create the variables are derived from the five elements of consensus scale: 1) Do you think that a majority of Cohen’s original formation of a moral panic (1972, community members are in agreement about the risk 2002) and the expansions made by Goode and Ben- that sex offenders pose? 2) Do you think that many Yehuda (1994). The elements of concern, hostility, community members feel that changes must be made consensus, volatility, and disproportionality are used in the supervision of sex offenders? 3) Do you think as theoretical predictors of the CATSO Scale. The that community members in general feel threatened by different variables are in scaled form and are original sex offenders as a group? 4) Do you think that a to the data set. At the time of the submission, they have majority of community members are in agreement that only been used in two other analyses (Klein & Cooper, children are at risk of being sexually victimized? 5) Do 2019; Klein & Mckissick, 2019). Confirmatory factor you think that many community members feel that sex analysis was completed to determine factor loadings offenders are too dangerous to be living in the for the moral panic subscales. Additional information community? All five items were measured on a four- for each subscale and the operationalization of each point Likert scale, with response options ranging from element of a moral panic are included below. A full definitely not (1) to definitely yes (4). Factor analysis factor analysis of the subscales is located in the confirmed that all five items loaded onto the same appendix of the paper. factor at .745 or higher, and reliability analysis Five items were used to create the concern confirmed that the multi-item, averaged, scale was scale: 1) Are you worried about sex offenders living reliable and appropriate to use in the models nearby your home? 2) Are you worried that children in (Cronbach’s alpha = .892). your community (your own children, or children in Five items were also used to create the general) may be at risk of becoming the victim of a volatility scale: 1) Do you think that law enforcement sexual offense? 3) Are you worried that you personally reacts quickly when a sexual offense takes place? 2) may become the victim of a sexual offense? 4) Are you Do you think that legislators work fast enough to get worried about children in your community (your own necessary registry laws passed to further keep track of children, or children in general) being approached by sex offenders? 3) Do you think that the media reports a sexual offender? 5) Are you worried that as sex on sex offense cases too quickly before all of the facts offenders continue to live in the community, then more are gathered? 4) Do you think that the quick response sex offenses will occur? All five items were measured of the media makes communities safer because people on a four-point Likert scale, with response options are made aware of the sex offense? 5) Do you think ranging from definitely not (1) to definitely yes (4). that police are too slow to catch sex offenders when Factor analysis confirmed that all five items loaded sex offenses take place? All five items were measured onto the same factor at .794 or higher, and reliability on a four-point Likert scale, with response options analysis confirmed that the multi-item, averaged, scale ranging from definitely not (1) to definitely yes (4). was reliable and appropriate to use in the models Factor analysis confirmed that all five items loaded (Cronbach’s alpha = .841). onto the same factor at .713 or higher, and reliability Five items were also used to create the analysis confirmed that the multi-item, averaged, scale hostility scale: 1) Are you angry that sex offenders are was reliable and appropriate to use in the models allowed to live in the community? 2) Do you feel any (Cronbach’s alpha = .852). resentment over the fact that some of your neighbors Four items were also used to create the may be sex offenders? 3) Do you feel any anger toward disproportionality scale: 1) Do you feel that the the criminal justice system for releasing sex offenders current state of the sex offender registry is too harsh? from jails and prisons? 4) Are you angry that sex 2) Do you think that keeping sex offenders on offenders may be working at businesses where you electronic monitoring/GPS tracking for more than five may frequently shop or visit? 5) Are you angry that years without a break is too severe a punishment? 3) children in your community (your own children, or Do you think that sex offenders should report to law children in general) might come into contact with sex enforcement more than two times per year? 4) Do you offenders? All five items were measured on a four- think that the media overreacts in their reporting of sex point Likert scale, with response options ranging from offenses when they occur in a community? All four definitely not (1) to definitely yes (4). Factor analysis items were measured on a four-point Likert scale, with confirmed that all five items loaded onto the same response options ranging from definitely not (1) to factor at .782 or higher, and reliability analysis definitely yes (4). Item 3 was the only one not reverse confirmed that the multi-item, averaged, scale was coded for directionality purposes. Originally, this reliable and appropriate to use in the models scale contained five items like the previous four moral (Cronbach’s alpha = .915). panic scales, but one item was removed due to a low factor loading. The completed factor analysis

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 21, Issue 3 MORAL PANICS AND THE CATSO SCALE 9 confirmed that four of the five items loaded onto the analyses. In addition to trying to predict these four same factor at .748 or higher, and reliability analysis scales, the development of the CATSO Scale calls for confirmed that the multi-item, averaged, scale was all 18-items to be tested together in a large, additive reliable and appropriate to use in the models index. The Total Index of Negative Attitudes variable (Cronbach’s alpha = .835). will serve as the fifth and final dependent variable for multivariate regression analyses. This index was also analyzed for reliability and is appropriate to use in the Dependent Variable models (Cronbach’s alpha = .836). The current study seeks to predict community Analytic Plan member attitudes toward sex offenders via the use of the CATSO Scale. The CATSO Scale, as previously This study uses participant demographics discussed, is an 18-item scale developed by Church et (control variables), registry strictness, search, and al. (2008) and for this study it was used identically to knowledge variables, and the elements of a moral how it was developed by the researchers. The CATSO panic (used as theoretical predictor variables) to Scale breaks into four constructs: Social Isolation, predict the different aspects of the CATSO Scale, Capacity to Change, Severity/Dangerous, and which is used to measure participant perceptions of Deviancy. The measures are then combined into a full sex offenders. Bivariate correlations were then index of the 18 items, called the Total Index of conducted to examine which independent variables Negative Attitudes. The full reporting of the univariate were related to the five outcomes of interest; the four statistics for these measures are available upon elements of the CATSO Scale and the Total Index of request. Negative Attitudes. A full listing of these correlations The four factors mentioned above each have is available upon request given the large number of a different number of items loading on to each correlations performed. Due to the scaled nature of the component. Confirmatory factor analysis was dependent variables, the use of ordinary least squares completed to determine factor loadings for each of the (OLS) regression was an appropriate choice for the CATSO subscales, to determine whether the original multivariate regressions used in this study. The results four subscales were still intact within the current show the OLS regressions for each of the four dataset. The 18-items loaded onto the four proposed elements of the CATSO Scale and then finally, the constructs as intended and remain consistent with the Total Index of Negative Attitudes. original confirmatory factor analysis reported by Church and colleagues (20081). Additional Results information for each subscale is included below with a full confirmatory factor analysis of the subscales Social Isolation was the first scaled located in the appendix of the paper. dependent variable predicted within an OLS Social Isolation, Capacity to Change, and regression analysis. For this model, a total of 15.7% of Severity/Dangerousness are all comprised of five the variance was explained by the predictor variables items each, with the items loading onto one component (F(2,875) = 10.67, p < .001). Of the control variables, for each of the three CATSO factors. For each of the only race was a significant predictor of Social five items, they loaded onto the same factor at .615 or Isolation, which indicates that non-White participants higher for Social Isolation, .615 or higher for Capacity (b = -.30, p < .001) are more likely to believe that sex to Change, and .606 or higher for offenders are socially isolated individuals. None of the Severity/Dangerousness. Reliability analyses registry strictness, search, or knowledge variables confirmed that the multi-item, averaged, scales were were significant predictors of the element of social reliable and appropriate to use in the models based on isolation. However, the moral panic elements of that Cronbach’s alpha for each of the three CATSO hostility, volatility, and disproportionality were factors (Social Isolation = .809, Capacity to Change = significant predictors of social isolation. Those .784, and Severity/Dangerousness = .742). Sexual participants who felt more hostile toward sex Deviancy only contained three items, which all loaded offenders (b = .13, p < .05), who did not believe that a on to the same component during the confirmatory volatile response toward sex offenders was occurring factor analysis. The three items loaded onto the same (b = -.31, p < .001) and who did not believe that a factor at .653 or higher, and reliability analysis disproportionate response was occurring (b = -.15, p < confirmed that the multi-item, averaged, scale was .001), were more likely to believe that sex offenders reliable and appropriate to use in the models are socially isolated individuals. (Cronbach’s alpha = .703). In the second OLS regression analysis, the These four scales serve as the first four same variables were used to predict Capacity to dependent variables for the multivariate regression Change. For this model, a total of 45.5% of the

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 21, Issue 3 10 KLEIN ET AL.

variance was explained by the predictor variables (F predictors of Severity/Dangerousness, which indicates (2,875) = 44.81, p < .001). Of the control variables, that women (b = .11, p < .05) and non-White only race was a significant predictor of Capacity to participants (b = -.37, p < .001) are more likely to Change, which indicates that non-White participants believe that sex offenders are dangerous offenders (b = -.34, p < .001) are more likely to believe that sex who commit severe crimes. Of the registry strictness, offenders are incapable of change. Of the registry search, or knowledge variables, the registry strictness, search, or knowledge variables, only the knowledge and stereotypical sex offender variables stereotypical sex offender variable was significant. were significant. This suggests that those with less This suggests that those who identified a less accurate accurate knowledge (b = -.03, p < .01) and that those profile of the most common sex offender who identified a less accurate profile of the most characteristics (b = -.08, p < .001) are more likely to common sex offender characteristics (b = -.12, p < believe that sex offenders are incapable of change. .001) are more likely to believe that sex offenders are Finally, of the moral panic variables, hostility, dangerous offenders who commit severe crimes. consensus, and disproportionality were significant Finally, of the moral panic variables, concern was the predictors of Capacity to Change. This indicates that only variable that was not a significant predictor of those participants who felt more hostile toward sex Severity/Dangerousness. This indicates that offenders (b = .62, p < .001), who felt more consensus participants who felt more hostile toward sex in the community (b = .13, p < .01), and did not believe offenders (b = .31, p < .001), who felt more consensus that a disproportionate response was occurring (b = - in the community (b = .24, p < .001), who did not .13, p < .01), were more likely to believe that sex believe that a volatile response toward sex offenders offenders are incapable of change. was occurring (b = -.33, p < .001), and did not believe The element of Severity/Dangerousness was that a disproportionate response was occurring (b = - predicted within the third model. For this model, a .27, p < .001), were more likely to believe that sex total of 38.9% of the variance was explained by the offenders are dangerous offenders who commit severe predictor variables (F(2,875) = 34.24, p < .001). Of the crimes. control variables, gender and race were significant

Table 4. OLS Regression Models Predicting the Elements of the CATSO Scale (N = 877)

Variable Social Isolation Capacity to Change Severity/Dangerousness Deviancy b SE ß b SE ß b SE ß b SE ß Gender (Female) .07 .07 .04 .07 .05 .04 .11* .05 .07 .06 .07 .03 Age -.03 .02 -.07 .01 .01 .03 -.02 .01 -.05 .01 .01 .01 Race (White) -.30*** .07 -.16 -.34*** .05 -.20 -.37*** .05 -.22 -.35*** .07 -.18 Ethnicity (Non-Hispanic) -.01 .01 -.05 .00 .01 .02 .00 .01 .00 .00 .01 .01 Education Level .04 .06 .02 .05 .05 .03 .07 .05 .04 .01 .06 .01 Population Size -.00 .02 -.00 -.02 .02 -.02 .00 .02 .01 -.01 .02 -.01

Registry Support .01 .04 .01 .02 .03 .02 .00 .03 .00 .03 .04 .02 Registry Strictness -.00 .03 -.00 .02 .02 .03 .00 .02 .00 -.02 .03 -.02 Search for Sex Offenders -.06 .06 -.03 .04 .05 .02 -.06 .05 -.04 -.08 .06 -.04 Registry Knowledge -.02 .01 -.03 .02 .01 .04 -.03** .01 -.07 .02 .01 .04 Stereotypical Sex Offender -.07 .02 -.11 -.08*** .02 -.14 -.12*** .02 -.22 -.12*** .02 -.19

Concern .05 .05 .04 .07 .04 .07 .01 .04 .01 .01 .05 .01 Hostility .13* .06 .12 .62*** .05 .64 .31*** .05 .34 .36*** .06 .34 Consensus .07 .06 .06 .13** .05 .11 .24*** .05 .22 .10 .06 .08 Volatility -.31*** .06 -.19 -.06 .04 -.04 -.33*** .04 -.23 -.27*** .05 -.17 Disproportionality -.15** .07 -.13 -.13** .04 -.12 -.27*** .04 -.26 -.05 .06 -.03

Constant 3.33 .23 2.62 .17 3.59 .175 2.76 .22 F Statistic 10.69*** 44.81*** 34.24*** 20.14*** R Square .157 .455 .389 .273

***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 21, Issue 3 MORAL PANICS AND THE CATSO SCALE 11

Table 5. OLS Regression Models Predicting Total Index of model, a total of 39.1% of the variance was explained Negative Attitudes (N = 877) by the predictor variables (F(2,875) = 34.57, p < .001).

Of the control variables, only race was a significant Variable Full Model predictor of the Total Index of Negative Attitudes, b SE ß which indicates that non-White participants (b = -.35, Gender (Female) .31 .17 .06 p < .001) are more likely to have negative attitudes Age -.03 .04 -.03 toward sex offenders. Of the registry strictness, search, Race (White) -1.35*** .18 -.24 or knowledge variables, only the stereotypical sex Ethnicity (Non-Hispanic) -.00 .02 -.01 offender variable was a significant predictor of the Education Level .17 .16 .03 Total Index of Negative Attitudes, suggesting that Population Size -.02 .06 -.01 those who identified a less accurate profile of the most common sex offender characteristics (b = -.12, p < Registry Support .06 .09 .02 .001) are more likely to have negative attitudes toward Registry Strictness .00 .08 .00 sex offenders. Finally, of the moral panic variables Search for Sex Offenders -.15 .16 -.03 hostility, consensus, and volatility were significant Registry Knowledge -.01 .04 -.01 predictor variables. This suggests that participants Stereotypical Sex Offender -.39*** .06 -.21 who felt more hostile toward sex offenders (b = 1.42,

Concern .02 .14 .01 p < .001), who felt more consensus in the community Hostility 1.42*** .16 .46 (b = .55, p < .001), and who did not believe that a Consensus .55*** .16 .15 volatile response toward sex offenders was occurring Volatility -.84*** .16 -.18 (b = -.84, p < .001), were more likely to hold negative Disproportionality -.25 .15 -.07 attitudes toward sex offenders.

Constant 12.30 .59 F Statistic 34.57*** R Square .391 Discussion

***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05 The purpose of this paper is to explore explanations for community attitudes toward sex The fourth OLS regression analysis sought to offenders. This paper seeks to explain these predict Deviancy: a total of 27.3% of the variance was community attitudes based on general demographics, explained by the predictor variables (F(2,875) = 20.14, knowledge and severity of perceptions regarding the p < .001). Of the control variables, only race was a registry, and concepts of moral panic. Although the significant predictor of Deviancy, which indicates that elements of moral panics are generally used to non-White participants (b = -.35, p < .001) understand how the community experiences fear about are more likely to believe that sex offenders are different types of crime, prior research challenges that deviant individuals. Of the registry strictness, search, this operates differently with crimes of a sexual nature. or knowledge variables, only the stereotypical sex Burchfield, Sample & Lytle and colleagues (2014) offender variable was a significant predictor of have argued that instead of spikes of panic within the Deviancy, suggesting that those who identified a less community due to specific incidents being publicized, accurate profile of the most common sex offender that there is a long-lasting and sustained panic, known characteristics (b = -.12, p < .001) are more likely to as perpetual panic, that is not specific to any one believe that sex offenders are deviant individuals. Of incident but rather is embedded in a culture of fear. the moral panic variables, only hostility and volatility The current study expands the prior were significant predictors of Deviancy. This indicates knowledge that has assessed community fear exhibited that those participants who felt more hostile toward through moral panic by using the four constructs sex offenders (b = .36, p < .001) and who did not outlined as theoretical predictors of the CATSO Scale: believe that a volatile response toward sex offenders (Social Isolation, Capacity to Change, was occurring (b = -.27, p < .001) were more likely to Severity/Dangerous, and Deviancy), and the combined believe that sex offenders are deviant individuals. Total Index of Negative Attitudes. This guided the The fifth and final OLS regression analysis analysis of two research questions: (1) Are prior focuses on the Total Index of Negative Attitudes, attitudes and beliefs regarding current SORN which addresses the collective 18-items that were legislation significant predictors of the CATSO Scale? broken down into the previous four constructs of (2) Are the elements of a moral panic significant Social Isolation, Capacity to Change, predictors of the elements of the CATSO Scale? In Severity/Dangerousness, and Deviancy. For this order to address the research questions posed, the

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 21, Issue 3 12 KLEIN ET AL. researchers conducted one test for each of the elements justice system involvement adds to the literature of the CATSO scale and one combined test. surrounding community member perceptions in Across each of the five models, the comparison to those who have more direct connections proportion of the variance explained range from 15% in working with individuals convicted of sexual to nearly 45%, with the model predicting Capacity to offenses. Change having the greatest explanation. Within each Beyond the moral panic elements, only race of these models, race was always found to be a and the stereotypical sex offender variables showed up significant variable and most other demographics as significant predictors across the majority of the never reached a level of significance (with the models, indicating that those who were non-white and exception of the model predicting less able to identify to identify the stereotypical Severity/Dangerousness where gender was characteristics of a sex offender were more likely to significant). While at least one of the moral panic believe that sex offenders are incapable of change. concepts was significant in each of the models, there Many in the public still view individuals convicted of was overall consistency across all of the models about sexual offenses as a homogeneous group of unknown which of the concepts were significant. In the four or stranger child predators who wait to abduct children models predicting each of the concepts of the (Sample & Kadleck, 2008). Therefore, we worry less community attitudes toward sex offenders separately, about the possibility that a sexual offense may occur the hostility scale variable was significant, and often at the hands of someone familiar to us, whether that be the strongest predictor, in each of the models except a relative, close friend, or acquaintance. This stranger the overall model predicting negative attitudes toward assailant paradigm does not align with the findings sex abuse. from Ackerman and colleagues (2011) that suggest As was discussed previously, there is mixed that the most frequent type of registered sex offender support for the use of the CATSO scale. Some is a White, non-Hispanic male, with a mean age of researchers advocate for a two-factor scale (Conley et 44.3 years of age. Research additionally debunks the al., Hill, Church Stoeckel, & Allen, 2011; Wevodau et idea that an abundance of stranger-perpetrated sex al., Cramer, Gemberling, Clark III, 2016), while others crimes is occurring, as less than 1% of offenses have found support for the continued use of the four- beingare committed by strangers (Sedlack, Finkelhor, factor version (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2013). In Hammer, & Schultz et al., 2002). Furthermore, our testing the data used for this study, we were able to findings show that this correct knowledge is essential confirm the four-factor model as was included in the to the community holding positive attitudes toward sex original Church et al. (2008) study. Given this offenders. Without this increased awareness of the confirmation coupled with the mixed support for the nuances of who gets placed on the sex offender four-factor model, we made the decision to use the registry, public support for community supervision original scale. The goal of the paper was to examine and civil commitment will continue, despite evidence whether the CATSO scale was successful in predicting contrary to their benefits for increased public safety community members’ attitudes toward registered (Caldwell & Dickinson, 2009; Huebner & Bynum, individuals while viewed through a moral panic 2006; Prescott & Rockoff, 2011; Renzema & Mayo- framework. This was not meant to reframe or Wilson, 2005; Sandler, Freeman, & Socia et al., 2008). restructure the CATSO scale into a two-factor model. Overall, this study connects two important These results highlight the overall areas of literature about the behaviors and outcomes of relationship between moral panic in response to and individuals who are registered sex offenders—Moral community attitudes toward individuals convicted of Panic and Community Attitudes (Church et al., 2008; sexual offenses. They also showcase the emotional Cohen, 1972; Goode & Ben-Yehuda, 1994; Church et aspect captured in hostility (focusing on feeling of al., 2008). While prior researchers have mixed anger and resentment toward offense and actors) as a criticisms about the constructs used in studying key part to understanding community attitudes, perceptions of sex offenders (Corabian & Hogan, especially the belief that individuals who have 2015; Kerr, Tully, Vollm et al., 2018; Tewksbury & committed sexual offenses have the capacity to Mustaine, 2013), this study tested the four constructs change. As we were able to replicate the four-factor both separately and together to better understand their version of the CATSO scale, this adds to the mixed individual and cumulative outcomes. Despite some support for the scale. Although we certainly variations in effect size, the significant variables were acknowledge that there may be issues with the scale mostly consistent across each of the models. To test that must be addressed, we feel as though these the research questions further, future research would findings add to the conversation regarding the benefit from a representative sample from the restructuring of the scale. Furthermore, the application community, as well as accounting for the prevalence of the CATSO scale to a sample with no criminal

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 21, Issue 3 MORAL PANICS AND THE CATSO SCALE 13 of registrants in the communities represented by the Campregher, J. & Jeglic, E.L. (2016). Attitudes participants. toward juvenile sex offender legislation: The In conclusion, the elements of moral panic influence of case-specific information. Journal were informative toward perceptions of sex offenders. of Child Sexual Abuse, 25(4), 466-482. While not all variables performed the same, the https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2016.1153558 hostility scale variable emphasizes the emotional role, and knowledge of characteristics emphasizes the Caldwell, M. F., & Dickinson, C. (2009). Sex offender knowledge role in finding a solution between policies registration and recidivism risk in juvenile sexual offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, that increase public safety, address community 941–956. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.907 concerns, and reduce trauma to those who are registered. Despite continued support by the public for Chui, W. H., Cheng, K. K. Y., & Ong, R. (2014). exclusionary and stigmatizing policies, our findings Exploration of the Community Attitude toward add to the collective body of research suggesting that Sex Offender scale in a Chinese cultural individuals are not as knowledgeable about what they context. Asian Journal of Criminology, 9(1), 37– support, inferring implying that there is more of an 48. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11417-013- emotional connection to these laws rather than a 9174-2 evidence-based one. Tough on crime efforts like the sex offender registry were created to supervise the Church, W. T., Sun, F., & Li, X. (2011). Attitudes individuals of whom we are the most afraid. However, toward the treatment of sex offenders: A SEM there are individuals who advocate for change to the analysis. Journal of Forensic Social Work, 1(1), current registry system. Community member led 82–95. advocacy groups at the state and national level https://doi.org/10.1080/1936928X.2011.541213 advocate for changes to the registry system through Church, W. T., Wakeman, E. E., Miller, S. L., legislative means. Empirical evidence, like that Clements, C. B., & Sun, F. (2008). Community provided here, can aid those advocacy groups in their attitudes toward sex offenders scale: The efforts to promote change. This research highlights development of a psychometric assessment areas where both researchers and practitioners can Instrument. Research on Social Work Practice, look to developing informative campaigns and 18, 251–259. interventions that address both emotional and factual https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731507310193 concerns related to those who are registered. Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics: The creation of the mods and rockers (1st ed.). Routledge. Cohen, S. (2002). Folk devils and moral panics: The creation of the mods and rockers (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Conley, T., Hill, K., Church, W. T., Stoeckel, E., & Allen, H. (2011). Assessing probation and community corrections workers' attitudes toward References sex offenders using the community attitudes toward sex offenders (CATSO) scale in a rural state. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 18, 75– Ackerman, A. R., Harris, A. J., Levenson, J., & Zgoba, 85. K. M. (2011). Who are the people in your https://doi.org/10.1080/10720162.2011.582775 neighborhood? A descriptive analysis of individuals on public sex offender registries. Corabian, G., & Hogan, N. R. (2015). Attitudes International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 34, towards sex offenders in Canada: Further 149–159. validation of the CATSO-R factor https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.04.001 structure. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22(5), 723–730. Burchfield, K. B., Sample, L. L., & Lytle, R. (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2014.985623 Public interest in sex offenders: A perpetual panic? Criminology, Criminal Justice Law, & Day, A., Boni, N., Hobbs, G., Carson, E., Whitting, L., Society, 15(3), 96–117. & Powell, M. (2014). Professional attitudes to sex https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403415572253 offenders: Implications for multiagency and collaborative working. Sexual Abuse in Australia

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 21, Issue 3 14 KLEIN ET AL.

and New Zealand: An Interdisciplinary Journal, attitudes toward sex offenders (CATSO) scale. 6(1), 12–19. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law and Society, 16(3), 41–60. Dowler, K. (2003). Media consumption and public attitudes toward crime and justice: The Klein, J. L., & Cooper, D.T. (2019). Punitive attitudes relationship between fear of crime, punitive toward sex offenders: Do moral panics cause attitudes, and perceived police effectiveness. community members to be more punitive? Journal of Criminal Justice & Popular Culture, Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(6), 948–968. 10, 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0887403418767251 Fox, K. J. (2013). Incurable sex offenders, lousy Klein, J. L., & Mckissick, A. B. (2019). Moral panics judges & the media: Moral panic sustenance in the and community member perceptions regarding age of new media. American Journal of Criminal reductions in sex offender recidivism. Justice Justice, 38, 160–181. Policy Journal, 16(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-012-9154-6 Lam, A., Mitchell, J., & Seto, M. C. (2010). Lay Goode, E., & Ben-Yehuda, N. (1994). Moral panics: perceptions of child pornography The social construction of deviance. Cambridge: offenders. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Blackwell Publishers Inc. Criminal Justice, 52(2), 173–201. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.3138/cjccj.52.2.17 Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). 3 Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal Levenson, J., Brannon, Y. N., Fortney, T., & Baker, J. of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(3), 213–224. N. (2007). Public perceptions about sex offenders https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1753 and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7(2), 1–25. Greenfeld, L.A. (1997). Sex offenses and offenders: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530- An analysis of data on rape and sexual assault. 2415.2007.00119.x Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Lytle, R. (2015). Variation in criminal justice policy- Huebner, B. M., & Bynum, T. S. (2006). An analysis making: An exploratory study using sex offender of parole decision making using a sample of sex registration and community notification laws. offenders: A focal concerns perspective. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 26(3), 211–233. Criminology, 44(4), 961–991. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0887403413507274 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745- 9125.2006.00069.x Maguire, M., & Singer, J. K. (2011). A false sense of security: Moral panic driven sex offender Jenkins, P. P. (2004). Moral Panic: Changing legislation. Critical Criminology, 19, 301–312. Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-010-9127-3 America: Yale University Press. Mancini, C. (2013). Sex crime, offenders & society: A Jones, E. C. (2013). An examination of counseling critical look at sexual offending and policy. professional/paraprofessionals attitudes toward Carolina Academic Press. adolescent sex offenders. SAGE Open, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2158244013501330 Mears, D. P., Mancini, C., Gertz, M., & Bratton, J. (2008). Sex crimes, children and pornography: Kim, B., Benekos, P. J., & Merlo, A. V. (2016). Sex Public views and public policy. Crime & offender recidivism revisited: Review of recent Delinquency, 54, 532–559. meta-analyses on the effects of sex offender https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0011128707308160 treatment. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(1), 105–117. Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (2006). Social https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014566719 disorganization and residential locations of registered sex offenders: Is this a collateral Kerr, N., Tully, R. J., & Völlm, B. (2018). consequence? Deviant Behavior, 27(3), 329–350. Volunteering with sex offenders: The attitudes of https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620600605606 volunteers toward sex offenders, their treatment, and rehabilitation. Sexual Abuse, 30(6), 659–675. Mustaine, E. E., Tewksbury, R., Connor, D. P., & https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1079063217691964 Payne, B. (2015). Criminal justice officials' views of sex offenders, sex offender registration, Klein, J. L. (2015). Vilifying the pedophiles and community notification, and residency perverts: A nationwide test of the community restrictions. Justice System Journal, 36(1), 63–85.

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 21, Issue 3 MORAL PANICS AND THE CATSO SCALE 15

O’Hear, M. M. (2008). Perpetual panic. Federal Shelton, L., Stone, J., & Winder, B. (2013). Evaluating Sentencing Reporter, 21(2), 69–77. the factor structure and reliability of the Community Attitudes Toward Sex Offenders Parolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P.G. (2010). (CATSO) scale. Journal of Criminal Psychology, Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical 3(2), 115–126. http://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-10- Turk. Judgments and Decision Making, 5(5), 2012-0014 411–419. Spoo, S., Kaylor, L. E., Schaaf, S., Rosselli, M., Prescott, J. J., & Rockoff, J. E. (2011). Do sex offender Laake, A., Johnson, C., & Jeglic, E. L. (2018). registration and notification laws affect criminal Victims’ attitudes toward sex offenders and sex behavior? The Journal of Law & Economics, offender legislation. International Journal of 54(1), 161–206. Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Qualtrics. (2015). Provo, Utah, USA. Retrieved from: 62(11) 3385–3407. www.qualtrics.com https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/0306624X17 740537 Renzema, M., & Mayo-Wilson, E. (2005). Can electronic monitoring reduce crime for moderate Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2012). Parole to high-risk offenders? Journal of Experimental board members' views of sex offender registration Criminology, 1(2), 215–237. and community notification. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(3), 413–431. Richards, K., & McCartan, K. (2017). Public views https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s12103-011- about reintegrating child sex offenders via Circles 9119-1 of Support and Accountability (COSA): A qualitative analysis. Deviant Behavior, 39(3), Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2013). Law 400–416. enforcement officials' views of sex offender https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2017.1304800 registration and community notification. International Journal of Police Science & Rogers, P., Hirst, L., & Davies, M. (2011). An Management, 15 (2), 95–113. investigation into the effect of respondent gender, https://doi.org/10.1350%2Fijps.2013.15.2.305 victim age, and perpetrator treatment on public attitudes towards sex offenders, sex offender Tewksbury, R., Mustaine, E. E., & Payne, B. K. treatment, and sex offender (2011). Community corrections professionals’ rehabilitation. Journal of Offender views of sexoffenders, sex offender registration Rehabilitation, 50(8), 511–530. and community notification and residency https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2011.602472 restrictions. Federal Probation, 75(3), 45– 50. Sandler, J., Freeman, N., & Socia, K. (2008). Does a Tewksbury, R., Mustaine, E. E., & Payne, B. K. watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New (2012). Community corrections professionals’ York state's sex offender registration and views about sex offenders: Is the CATSO notification laws. Psychology, Public Policy, and applicable? Criminal Justice Studies, 25, 145– Law, 14(4), 284–302. 157. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013881 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/1478601X.2 012.699733 Sample, L. L., & Bray, T. M. (2006). Are sex offenders different? An examination of rearrest Wevodau, A. L., Cramer, R. J., Gemberling, T. M., & patterns. Criminal justice policy review, 17(1), Clark III, J. W. (2016). A psychometric 83–102. assessment of the Community Attitudes Toward https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403405282916 Sex Offenders (CATSO) Scale: Implications for public policy, trial, and research. Psychology, Sample, L., & Kadleck, C. (2008). Sex offender laws: Public Policy, and Law, 22(2), 211. Legislators' accounts of the need for policy. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/law0000066 Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19(1), 40–62. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0887403407308292 Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., & Sedlak, A. J. (2016). Child victims of stereotypical kidnappings known to Sedlack, A. J., Finkelhor, D., Hammer, H., & Schultz, law enforcement in 2011. Juvenile Justice D. (2002). National estimates of missing children: Bulletin, 1–20. An overview. Juvenile Justice Bulletin.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/206180.pd f

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 21, Issue 3 16 KLEIN ET AL.

About the Authors Danielle Tolson Cooper, Ph.D., CPP is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice and the Director of Jennifer L. Klein, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Research at the Tow Youth Justice Institute at the Criminal Justice at the University of Texas at University of New Haven. Dr. Cooper received Tyler. She earned her Ph.D. from the University her BS in Justice Systems (with a minor in of Florida in 2014. Dr. Klein’s research interests Business Administration) in 2009 and her M.A. in include sex offender registration, collateral Criminology from the University of Florida in consequences of sex offender laws, the Jerry 2011. She recently received her Ph.D. in Sandusky scandal, criminological theory testing, Criminology (with a minor in Organizational and policy evaluation. She has published in Leadership for Nonprofits) from the University of Justice Policy Journal, Journal of Human Florida in 2015. She conducts research in the Behavior in the Social Environment, Journal of areas of youths and young adults, juvenile justice Qualitative Criminal Justice and Criminology, and delinquency prevention, criminological Criminology, and Criminal Justice, Law and theory, and sex offending. In addition to her work Society, among other journals. as a Professor and Researcher, she is also a

Certified Prevention Professional who works with nonprofits and community organizations as a Danielle J. S. Bailey, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor prevention trainer and evaluation consultant. of Criminal Justice at the University of Texas at Through her work in the community, she has Tyler. She earned her Ph.D. from the University collaborated with key stakeholders, such as youth of Nebraska at Omaha in 2015. Dr. Bailey’s and their parents, law enforcement, mental health research interests include sex offender policy for professionals, and youth serving organizations. convicted sex offenders and their family members, social support and criminal activity, and qualitative methodologies. She has published in Criminal Justice Policy Review, Criminal Justice Review, American Journal of Criminal Justice, and Criminal Justice Studies.

Endnotes

1 For all 18-items of the CATSO Scale, please see Church et al. (2008).

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 21, Issue 3 17 KLEIN ET AL.

Appendix

Table A. Factor Analysis for the Moral Panic Subscales. Component Concern 1 2 3 4 5 Are you worried about sex offenders living nearby your home? .112 -.326 .801 .065 .160 Are you worried that children in your community (your own children, or -.275 -.109 .794 -.280 .366 children in general) may be at risk of becoming the victim of a sexual offense? Are you worried that you personally may become the victim of a sexual .203 -.513 .838 -.130 .062 offense? Are you worried that children in your community (your own children, or -.144 -.238 .799 -.121 -.312 children in general) being approached by a sexual offender? Are you worried that as sex offenders continue to live in the community, .371 -.319 .823 -.158 .006 then more sex offenses will occur?

Hostility Are you angry that sex offenders are allowed to live in the community? -.126 .782 -.429 -.321 .091 Do you feel resentment over the fact that some of your neighbors may be .272 .812 -.199 .019 .126 sex offenders? Do you feel any anger toward the criminal justice system for releasing sex .196 .788 .124 -.347 -.210 offenders from jails and prisons? Are you angry that sex offenders may be working at businesses where -.082 .910 .069 .094 -.639 you may frequently shop or visit? Are you angry that children in your community (your own children, or .133 .849 -.136 .156 -.246 children in general) might come into contact with sex offenders?

Consensus Do you think that a majority of community members are in agreement .964 -.057 .301 -.046 -.112 about the risk that sex offenders pose? Do you think that many community members feel that changes must be .819 -.183 .062 -.107 -.275 made in the supervision of sex offenders? Do you think that community members in general feel threatened by sex .745 .139 .129 .100 -.203 offenders as a group? Do you think that a majority of community members are in agreement .782 -.035 -.421 -.159 -.144 that children are at risk of being sexually victimized? Do you think that many community members feel that sex offenders are .822 -.273 -.079 -.147 -.371 too dangerous to be living in the community?

Volatility Do you think that law enforcement reacts quickly when a sexual offense .160 .097 -.223 .745 -.430 takes place? Do you think that legislators work fast enough to get necessary registry .366 .342 .113 .801 -.112 laws passed to further keep track of sex offenders? Do you think that the media reports on sex offense cases too quickly .062 .204 -.149 .713 .045 before all of the facts are gathered? Do you think that the quick response of the media makes communities -.192 -.089 .321 .796 .126 safer because people are made aware of the sex offense? Do you think that police are too slow to catch sex offenders when sex offenses take place? -.053 .116 -.495 .845 .275

Disproportionality Do you feel that the current state of the sex offender registry is too harsh? -.367 -.159 -.294 .154 .748 (RC) Do you think that keeping sex offenders on electronic monitoring/GPS .041 .048 .139 -.027 .764 tracking for more than five years without a break is too severe a punishment? (RC) Do you feel that legislators should quickly strengthen sex offender laws .124 .236 .048 .321 -.245 when there is an increase in the sex offense crime rate? Do you think that sex offenders should report to law enforcement more than two times per year? .191 -.034 .272 -.214 .803 Do you think that the media overreacts in their reporting of sex offenses when they occur in a community? (RC) .264 -.079 -.144 .112 .789

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 21, Issue 3 18 KLEIN ET AL.

Table B. Factor Analysis for the 18-items of the CATSO Scale. Component Social Isolation 1 2 3 4 Sex offenders prefer to stay home alone rather than be around lots of people. .615 -.143 .113 .065 Most sex offenders do not have close friends. .671 -.109 .226 -.180 Sex offenders have difficulty making friends even if they try real hard. .699 -1.25 .027 -.130 Most sex offenders are unmarried men. .619 -.238 .279 -.121 Most sex offenders keep to themselves. .623 -.319 .270 -.058

Capacity to Change With support and therapy, someone who committed a sexual offense can learn to change their -.126 .649 -.007 -.321 behavior. (RC) People who commit sex offenses should lose their civil rights (e.g., voting and privacy). .272 .626 -.099 .019 Trying to rehabilitate a sex offender is a waste of time. .182 .676 -.214 -.356 Sex offenders should wear tracking devices so their location can be pinpointed at any time. -.096 .703 .069 .094 Convicted sex offenders should never be released from prison. .190 .615 -.136 -.146

Severity/Dangerousness Male sex offenders should be punished more severely than female sex offenders. (RC) -.112 -.057 .738 -.046 The prison sentences sex offenders receive are much too long when compared to the sentence -.275 -.183 .606 -.107 lengths for other crimes. (RC) Only a few sex offenders are dangerous. (RC) -.203 .139 .693 .100 Someone who uses emotional control when committing a sex offense is not as bad as someone -.144 -.035 .634 -.159 who uses physical control when committing a sex offense. (RC) A sex offense committed against someone the perpetrator knows is less serious than a sex offense -.371 -.273 .701 -.147 committed against a stranger. (RC)

Sexual Deviancy People who commit sex offenses want to have sex more often than the average person. .160 .097 -.223 .653 A lot of sex offenders use their victims to create pornography. .366 .342 .113 .701 Sex offenders have high rates of sexual activity. .062 .204 -.149 .667

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society – Volume 21, Issue 3